/k/ - Weapons

>>638604

Can't be as goofy as the Aunt Jemima

>>638604

Those weren't for clearing minefields, they were for finding the edge of the minefield so you could move the flail and plow tanks up to the front (and possibly also penetrating some distance into the minefield to cover the flail tanks while they worked).

>>638818

>Airacuda

Its problems almost mirrors the F35.

>>638839

Every source I could find describes the T15 as being simply a mine-resistant M4A2 rather than a dedicated mine-clearing vehicle, which to me suggests a role more along the lines of the British Matilda/Valentine AMRA.

The bit about fighting in minefields was just speculation on my part. Most of the flail and roller tanks couldn't defend themselves effectively because the mine-clearing gear blocked fire across most of their frontal arc, and in the flail's case also blinded the crew while it was running.

>>638818

The worst part about that whole design is that almost all of the problems you listed could be fixed by one simple modification (moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage).

>>638886

>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I get the feeling the people who thought landships were a good idea are the same people who think Mecha's would be a good idea today.

>>638874

You have to remember that the tank doctrine of the interwar period only knew infantry and cavalry tanks. Even the Germans used it, as the Panzer III was meant to be the cavalry tank, and the Panzer IV's job was to support the infantry. Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT. But in the interwar period all of it was completely unimaginable, and you didn't even have light, medium and heavy tanks. In that context it wasn't that insane of an idea to make a mobile bunker.

>>638874

>land dock

I'm going to need some recommended reading material on this. Also sponsons should never have gone away.

>>638887

>moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage

Apparently the gunners in the nacelles weren't even the ones firing them. They had the ability, but it was normally done by someone in the central fuselage, and the gunners just loaded the thing, which as far as I know is a role that usually isn't necessary. Meaning the entire concept of the crewed nacelles was useless in the first place, which in turns means you could make it tractor-driver and avoid the shitty flight characteristics and heating issues of a pusher, on top of saving two crew members' worth of weight, possibly making it fast enough to do its job.

The APU was just irredeemably retarded. There's no reason for it to be that way.

>>638901

I'm fairly sure it was J. F. C. Fuller (interesting guy actually, big Hitler fan and occultist) who had the idea but I'm not 100% sure, I've read about it in a book years back but it comes up in this video at some point as well.

>>638309

>What was the RLM thinking

"Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we had a long-rang, high payload strategic bomber with divebombing accuracy?".

Same reason the early E series Do 217s had a tail mounted air break for dive bombing which was discontinued because it had a nasty habit of ripping the whole tail from the aircraft.

The biggest issue the Greif had was not immidiately ditching the dive bombing and redeveloping it into a four engine design (something that was explicit forbidden yet done by Heinkel on their own dime).

>>638886

Except bomber escorts were powerless against the rocket and jet aircraft, the real problem the 163 had was the small engagement window with the heavily arcing Mk108s, the nasty propellant and the short burn time.

Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

>>638979

>bomber escorts were powerless against rocket aircraft

They weren't so powerless once the Me 163 had to glide back to base after expelling all of its fuel in a mere 7 minutes.

>Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

Don't forget actual landing gear.

>>638874

They may have been useless but i still love the concept, imagine on of those giant trucks they use for mining but with armor and turrets, slowly moving towards the enemy, have an enemy behemoth also approach to duel the first, would've been cool as fuck.

Also airships, but those are even less realistic.

>>639069

>use

Yeah to be scrapped for the valuable aluminum frame like every other airship of the time.

>>639083

Because navy faggots need to stay on the ocean, don't need them gaying up the sky any worse than the chairforce does already.

>>639069

I'm willing to give a very hesitant maybe. They had damn long range and were considerably faster than any surface ship, so I suppose using them as a dedicated scout carrier isn't actually that bad of an idea. Problems I see is that with aircraft maintenance I don't see you being able to maintain their ability to do so unless you want to scout with the airship itself, which to me seems like inviting disaster. And of course, their materials were in high demand and I don't see two of them being enough.

>>638901

>sponsons should never have gone away.

That reminds me: modern weapon stations should be armoured, so that they look like small turrets.

>>639280

There were attempts even during ww1, but the technology was simply not there. What's even worse is that it's been ready for decades, just nobody bothered with it.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90

>>639111

Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability? The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

We know from the Zeppelin bombing campaigns of WWI that a rigid airship, even a hydrogen one, can sustain a lot of small arms fire before going down. It wouldn't stand a chance against modern missile technology, but would it fare any worse than smaller navy vessels? How effective would CAWS systems be mounted on an airship? Are we in the wrong direction, and an airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

>>639297

Burger airships were filled with Helium so they wouldn't have Hindenburg'd themselves even when hit by incendiary rounds, though I doubt they'd last long against 1940s autocannons.

Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

>>638818

Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

>>638890

A bipedal gun carrier wouldn't be all that crazy in an urban warfare environment, if it had a compact enough and powerful enough engine.

Still, it'd be a small niche outside of which it would make no sense at all to field.

>>639447

The idea at the time was that fighters would be useless at intercepting bombers unless they had a 40-50% speed advantage. This was in the infancy of radar, so it was assumed fighters would be launched in response to sightings and would mostly be doing tail chases.

>>639465

There's actually no technical reason why an Akron-sized zeppelin couldn't be fitted to instead recover 3-4 F2As or F4Fs. The Macon's planned replacement would have even carried SBDs, exploiting the airship's own speed and altitude to launch planes with fuel and weapons loads that would be impossible for surface ships without the use of a catapult (which was a huge deal in 1935).

>>638890

A cruel Vicker's thesis

>>639069

They were cool but they were always novelties. Only thing they could have been used for is to drop tanks on the decks of Jap ships

>>639816

>paradropping heavy armor from zeppelins directly onto the decks of battleships

This is the future we could have had.

>>639069

>>639083

Why is everything you post so cute

>>639831

~uguu

>>638504

blish lock thompsons are a million times nicer than m1a1s and later versions.

>>639816

You make it sound like you think dropping tanks on the decks of Japanese ships isn't an important tactic.

>>638604

I like soviet aproach to getting thru minefield. Dont use specialised equipment. Just drive forward with battle tanks. Yes, you propably lose some percentage of vehicles, but you dont stall assault, doing so you negate main purpose of minefield.

Yes, I know that soviets had mineclearing tanks in WW2

>>639940

Pretty good, but could be better.

Instead of your own tanks, just force prisoners that you were probably going to execute anyway to form columns and march across the minefield.

You get to clear the field, save money that could be spent on repairs or new vehicles, and get rid of undesirables all at once. Three benefits in one! What a deal!

>>639946

We did something that was a lot less drasting, as they had to clean the minefield without dying on the process, but we still used undesirables to clear minefields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_service_in_Hungary_during_World_War_II

>>639946

Human weight is not enough to trigger AT mine. El Goblino could, but it's not high tech like some 10 trillion DARPA project.

>>639951

Just force feed el goblino or other prisoners enough lard so they'd be heavy enough to trigger the AT mines.

Hm. Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins? Like stuff them with explosives and disease before launching at your enemies via catapult? Might as well try to get all use you can out of them, yeah?

>>638886

>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I imagine the idea was something along the lines of

>"It will be a moving fortress. Steel ten metres thick so that no artillery can even dent it; it'll be an invulnerable machine of death"

>>639954

>Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins?

Let them migrate into the rival country.

>>639847

What does better fit and finish have to do with the core concept of the system not physically working?

>>640071

>not physically working

Just because the Blish principle is complete fiction doesn't mean the guns didn't work, it just means they were actually interrupted-thread-delayed blowback.

>>639991

bullshit myth, it worked most of the time with very few friendly fire incidents. they just ran out of dog, and it takes longer to breed and train a dog than a single grenadier that can attack multiple tanks

>>640160

>unknown flag

>>640160

google translate of http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/sobaka-mina.shtml - selected passage starts with "Первая группа собак-минеров…"

> The first group of miner dogs (30 dogs, 40 instructors, 4 cooks, 6 drivers, 10 soldiers of the miners) was sent to the front in the late summer of 1941.

>Already at the front, they tried to train dogs on real terrain against real tanks. As a result, of the twenty dogs released, no task was completed. The dogs scattered across the field and hid. Four of them could not be found. Two [were] crushed by tanks.

>The report of the group of the miner dogs captain Viporassky (Vinogradsky (?)) In the GUVI, written by hand and dated October 16, 1941, has survived:

"… 1. Most dogs refuse to work immediately and strive to jump into the trench, endangering infantry (six accidents).

2. Nine dogs after a short run in the right direction began to rush from side to side, were afraid of breaks artillery shells and mortars. , tried to hide in craters, pits, climbed under shelters. Three of them exploded, two were not revealed, the rest, because they began to go back, had to be destroyed with rifle-and-machine-gun fire

3. The fascists destroyed three dogs with guns fire and zab Ali himself. Trying to fight off and get killed by the dogs do not.

4. Presumably four dogs exploded near the German-fascist tanks, but confirm that they have disabled the tanks do not have … "

How retarded would it have been if the Germans tried to convert Mk108's to be used on the ground against infantry? It seems it would be a little to heavy to transport for infantry, but on vehicles it would be extremely effective I would think. Would there be any political issues of obtaining an air weapon for ground use?

>>640160

>igor living inside his fantasy world again

>>640196

If they had used it it would definitely have been vehicle mounted. The army would have had trouble getting them, however. Göring didn't want anything getting in the way of Luftwaffe procurement and would not have agreed to give up the guns very easily. The Wehrmacht generally took precedence when it came to manufacturing time, however and may have overruled him. The interservice rivalry for materials support was intense and it no doubt would have worsened with this request. It may have panned out differently toward the end of the war when the planes were grounded for lack of fuel anyways, but I'm not so familiar with that period. I did find a reference saying that Luftwaffe MG81s were transferred to ground use toward the end of the war, however how this occurred and the politics of such is unknown to me.

>>640196

They already had 20mm and 37mm autocannons mounted on half-tracks and tanks, and they were used against ground targets. Oftentimes those AA units were attached to the main group of an attack, so they were certainly effective. But the problem is that you'd introduce an aircraft weapon that can't be used as an AA weapon from the ground. Best I can imagine is mounting it on a Sd.Kfz. 250 or 251.

>>640247

It's like you forgot the most glorious ground troops known to man: the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. I'm sure if Göring got serious about ground troops you'd see all manners of aircraft weapons used by the boys-in-blue. I can even see them using grounded aircraft as assault vehicles. Yes, it would be a horrible idea that is incredibly wasteful and ineffective, but so were those divisions.

>>640252

I think it would arc too much for use as an ai gun. I was thinking more in the role of the ags 30 or an autocannon mounted on a troop transport vehicle

>>640252

>heavily armed aircraft flying within ground effect in order to bring autocannon fire to the front line while avoiding detonating landmines

Ayyyy

>>638491

To be fair, the F-111 did a few things well and some not so well. I mean how can you expect a plane to do everything from A to Z? The lancer is still in use to this day, so it couldn't have been that bad.

>>640394

Had said that could also become the case for F-35 if they turned it into a devoted ground attack aircraft but the .pdfs do not leave much ground for hope given its overheating and weapon bays shaking issues.

>>640394

The F-111 was actually great as far as actual performance went, it was just a huge pain in the ass to maintain. Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine, it just had the misfortune of being developed while USN leadership was still freaking out about our early-Vietnam WVR losses and wanted dogfighting capabilities on a fleet-defense interceptor that should never be allowing hostiles into visual range in the first place.

>>640412

>Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine

>fighter

Interceptor*. It would suck as a fighter. Plus the Navy's demands created the F-14, an air superiority fighter that if modernized would outperform all existing fighters even today (and unlike the F-35 and F-111 could be a true multi-role).

>>640218

>Hans learning about WW2 from Enemy at The Gates and CoD

>>640504

They still are. Most fuel is used raising to altitude, and then traveling to the enemy and back. Having something larger carry you there means you can remove two thirds of the fuel stores. And not having to land on the ground or deal with the stresses of landing means removing half the structural struts and the very heavy DEAD WEIGHT of the landing gear.

In other words it makes the aircraft more than TWICE lighter, so if it's using the same engines as the land variant, it's going to have OVER TWICE the thrust-to-weight ratio! Meaning being faster and being able to travel at higher altitude, it can feed more power into a turn meaning tighter turns as well, and it can tell missiles to fuck off. At the same cost.

There's a reason industry > crafts, there's a reason rocket staging > SSTO, splitting a task or operation into smaller bite sizes rocket staging is efficient, the same reason airplane staging would be more efficient.

>>638890

A shame instead of some crappy and barely useful mechas we get the F-35

>>641645

>Also, let's not armor it enough to stand up to anything but distant AT rifles, because otherwise it won't even be able to move.

>>641650

>Tu-144 looks upon the jeering crowd in disdain.

>>641751

They worked until they barrel wore away. 300 or so rounds as the Germans found out.

>>641751

God damn that PPSH made me laugh. Fucking pure autism just get rid of the barrel jacket.

>>641650

>copy of B-29

>equivalent of Concorde with smaller range

>equivalent of Space Shuttle but better

>"pathology"

>>641765

They would work if pansies would suck up their pride and go back to the tried and true round balls

>>641828

Wouldn't a musket ball work fairly well considering the range? I guess it would have shitty terminal effects though.

>>641829

And would it work with a shotgun? The breakup of the wad as it goes around the bend seems like it would be an issue there.

>>641839

I wish I had the childlike persistence, I tried about 3 or 4 times, I was pretty good about lining up with the road, but most of my shots were low and as a result I blew myself up before I could peel away.

>>641825

>I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge

Because bridges are small targets easier to hit with guided bomb

>>641998

I know I've seen that webm posted before, but please tell me its some celeb they have on there for a stupid show or something.

>>642029

Dear lord why did they scrap those things? The only things they needed extra were a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats.

Also if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

>>642029

Would Ground Effect vehicles work in the Sea of Japan or the Mediterranean?

>>642029

>Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe.

This. Is. Bullshit.

Ground effect exists everywhere, it happens because the air is trapped between the wing and the ground and thus produces a compression resistance in addition to usual lift.

This happens to every aircraft trying to land ever the ground effect is well known as something the pilot fights against every time he lands.

It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land. No such thing as "bad air pockets", that isn't how it works.

It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8. A ground effect aircraft can fly over virtually all seas much better than any ship connected to the fucking water.

Oh, and any aircraft that can fly in ground effect can also rise out of ground effect and fly normally. It's just wastes as much fuel as a normal aircraft when it does that, which kind of defeats the purpose.

The Wright Brothers likely made their first flight entirely in ground effect.

WIG can even land on water and sit there like a trimaran boat doing everything a boat does.

The literal only downside of a WIG over a boat is that the WIG can't move as fast once it lands.

>>642061

>a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats

The Italians have been developing some pretty nifty shells for that 76mm gun, therefore I think it wouldn't even need those missiles. Of course we don't know how much of this is just marketing.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/strales

>if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

Not just that, if you use it to patrol your own waters, then you can use them together with anti-ship missiles to get rid of anything from smugglers to invading fleets.

>>642294

>It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.

<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing

>apply lift force DOWN

<actively push the nose down

>has to actually point nose at the ground in order to apply aerodynamic force at the earth

>is riding in a 18th century 11-winged failplane

>has never heard of flaps

The fuck are you trying to prove?

>>642285

>This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats.

BUT THAT IS PATENTLY FUCKING WRONG YOU FAGGOT!!

Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

>>642321

No its not you double nigger, air pressure is significantly lower the higher you go up

>>642351

>at any given altitude

First learn to read. Then pick up a middle school science textbook.

>>642321

>Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

You are one dumb nigger. Have you never looked at a weather report where they talk about pressure systems? Have you never wondered why altimeters are adjustable? If pressure was uniform at a given altitude, then there would be nothing causing the air to flow horizontally. You know, that "wind" thing. Pressure would be uniform IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE IN EQUILIBRIUM, WHICH IT IS NOT. That is why weather exists.

>>642248

>It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8

Your entire argument here is based on the idea that the vehicle will maintain exactly the same altitude at all times, and it can be considered "safe" as long as nothing is taller than that exact altitude. That's a load of bullshit.

If the ground isn't flat you'll get turbulence that will bump you around. If turbulence is bumping you around, your height will change. If your height is changing, you might hit things that are sticking up from the surface. And since you are flying less than 10m above the surface, you have absolutely no time to react. Even if your craft can land on the water, flying through waves at full speed is not a good thing.

>>642080

delete this picture in an instant

VPNs are a fucking cancer

>>642424

The air pressure that makes weather systems doesn't change the density of the air enough to drop an aircraft out of the sky. It does not work that way.

>muh turbulence

Ekranoplans are uniquely suited to deal with it, they have larger control surfaces, mass more, have stub wings and more engine power than necessary. This isn't an issue.

>>642321

Show me where the Pilots use downforce outside the elevators to make their planes land and how flaps decrease aerodynamic lift somehow.

>>641998

>Holly Graf

Interesting that her Wikipedia article has a notice at the top saying the entire article may get deleted because it doesn't meet "notability guidelines". I'm sure there's no other interests at play there.

>For instance, while she was commander of the Churchill, a propeller snapped just as it was leaving port, leaving it dead in the water. Graf grabbed the navigator and dragged him to the outdoor bridge wing while cursing at him. According to chaplain Maurice Kaprow, many Churchill sailors, knowing that Graf's career would have ended if the Churchill had run aground, started jumping for joy and singing Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead on the fantail.

>Ultimately, the entire crew broke out in cheers when she was relieved in 2004.

Alright, generally speaking using bombs on a airstrip is generally effective especially If it's made of concrete. If you bomb a dirt/grass field it cam be quickly repaired, so what if we mined it? Mines can be launched from the ai, getting near an airstrip would be tough especially with engine noise. I figure you could turn your engine a way off from the target and glide in, drop your ordnance, and leave. This would be done at night, of course. I reckon this process could render an airstrip unusable thus forcing enemies to either relocate without being able to ferry aircraft, wasting time and logistics vehicles. At best it could blow off the gear of a returning or taking off aircraft. This is in more of a world war 2 context

>>642865

During WWII (and in other wars I'm sure), bombing airfields usually consisted of impact bombs combined with time fuzed ones. These fuzes could be anywhere from minutes to days long, which made attempting to repair the field hazardous. As far as mines go, I don't see it being that helpful, since I'm 90% sure airstrips would be inspected prior to use.

>>642550

Do you see that giant thing hanging off the back of the airplane? It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

6-7 seconds you can see him struggling with WIG effect, he bounces in the air twice trying to set it down.

>>642916

>It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

While not entirely wrong, you are certainly not right either.

Flaps increase the surface area of the wings and increase the angle of attack on the rear portions of it too. This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift. This is why flaps are used for landing and takeoff procedures. Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off. The drag they produce is not generally used for slowing down. You can see this especially immediately after touchdown. Pilots often immediately retract flaps after touchdown to decrease lift and give the wheelbrakes more weight on them.

Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

You could possibly be thinking about airbrakes, which are meant to produce drag and not lift, in order to slow the plane down.

WIG (Wing in ground, or ground effect) is not really a major issue for most fixed wing aircraft. A wing generates lift by increasing the static air pressure underneath the wing and increasing the dynamic pressure above. This causes an imbalance of forces acting upon the wings and generates an upwards force.

If the aircraft is close to the ground the pressure below the wing will be even greater, because air has no way to move out of the way downwards. This generates even greater lift even if the wing is moving slower than normal.

If pilots encounter this problem shortly before touchdown they can usually glide it out and wait until they have slowed down enough, or deploy airbrakes. Pulling up slightly increases AoA and makes the plane slow down a little faster, so it's not a bad idea, as long as you don't stall entirely or manage to tailstrike.

If you are still far too fast near ground it is recommended to do a go around. What speed is too fast is determined per model of aircraft individually.

>>642289

If you could get the shells to work well, they could certainly do as a high caliber CAWS. The reason I said a pair of AA missiles is because it uses existing munitions and launchers, and would reduce the contractor sponging to a minimum. You could even attach a towed sonar bouy, a targeting system and swap two of the harpoon missiles for asrocs and you have an all purpose, cheaply made, fast as all fuck fighting boat.

>>642916

Exactly. That's why we also use flaps during takeoff, where the goal is to minimize both speed and lift.

>>642929

>This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift.

No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

Lowering flaps just maintains some level of lift and control at a lower speed, so you aren't stalling and falling like a rock. This is obvious because even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift". Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag, and they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over. You can see this on some much larger aircraft which don't reduce the flaps when wheels touch the ground, as they're too massive/stable to flip over.

>Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

>Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off.

It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.

>>643046

You're also using your elevators during takeoff which make sure your nose is up, and your engines which pump power into the system which otherwise would be crashing. For fucks sake…

>>643060

At this point I hope you're just baiting, and not actually this stupid.

If flaps tend to flip the aircraft over, then why are they left extended for soft-field landings? If flaps increased lift, then keeping them extended makes sense, since it stops your wheels digging into the ground (which actually could cause you to flip over), but since you insist they don't then what's the reason?

If flaps only increase drag and not lift in ground effect, then why are flaps particularly extended for short-field takeoffs? If they increased lift and reduced the stall speed, then it makes sense since you'd have a lower takeoff speed, and thus need less runway. But since you insist they just increase drag when in ground effect, you would accelerate slower, and need MORE runway to get up to speed, making flaps counterproductive.

>even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift"

What are you even trying to say? With flaps extended you produce more lift than you would with flaps up in the same conditions. That is true when you are ascending with flaps extended during takeoff, and it is true when you are descending with flaps extended during approach.

>Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

>>643069

>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

The absolute basics for you guys seem to be "when something is falling down, it isn't achieving more lift than when it's flying level"

>>643085

>τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

Grab a hammer by the bottom of the grips. Lift the head, note how difficult it is.

Now grab it by the head, closer to the center of mass, and lift the handle.

Which is easier?

Applying force closer to the center of mass produces stronger results, this is why swords are balanced so the center of mass is near the tip of the grips ffs.

How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

>>639280

>low fuel efficiency

>heating issues

Probably was winding the motors for too much speed, so at low speed they ate shitload of electricity and produced shitload of heat for very little mechanical power output. Or he did something retarded like using resistive voltage regulator instead of simply controlling motor RPM. Something simple like generator directly connected to the engine, wired through a breaker box to the sprocket-driving universal motors, would have no problems whatsoever bar minor arcing in the breaker and on the motor brushes.

>>643060

>No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

I seriously hope you don't belive that.

Airplanes already slow down a lot during approach. It's travel speed is a lot faster than it's landing speed.

Deploying flaps allows you to

>maintain[s] some level of lift and control at a lower speed

because it increases lift drastically. Without deploying flaps you would be close to stalling and certainly pushing the nose of the aircraft much higher than with flaps. This would make landing harder for the pilots and designing the landing gear much more difficult for the engineers, because you still have to prevent a tailstrike.

>What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Yeah, this is bait.

>>643208

>he doesn't know the difference between force and torque

This is hilarious.

>>643208

>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

Except that's not what the image shows, which you would know if you understood the mechanics behind flaps and their effect on flight.

>>643257

The Blackburn Roc and the Boulton Paul Defiant were kind of close to what you're talking about, but I would assume that having a rotating pair of 20 mils and a 35(?)mm would take up too much space as opposed to a fixed mounting.

>>643349

Yeah, but its a night fighter which applies to it working on aircraft that target things that can't move.

>>643277

>>643302

>>643246

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft. During landing the drag is a nice benefit that reduces airspeed. The reason why they're in half position when taking off is because you're not as willing to risk the drag, but still need controlability at the low speeds.

I can't believe I'm arguing the existence of WIG with some basic bitches.

>>643344

Rubber ducky is experiencing buoyancy, which is a different force. Are you serious?

>>643406

>Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft.

>flaps have to be able to turn the aircraft

I'm not convinced you even know what flaps are.

>>643416

>Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift

When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing. When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag. How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing? But quote more out of context, I'm sure if you slime bullshit around enough, some useful idiots will believe you. Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.

>>643430

>When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing.

Who the fuck ever said anything about "preventing" an aircraft from landing? How are you not capable of understanding the simple fact that flaps increase the angle of attack, which increases the amount of lift a wing generates AT A GIVEN SPEED. By putting flaps in during a landing, the plane may be slowed to a point that it would normally stall in a 'clean' configuration while also allowing a steeper decent.

>When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag.

We call this thrust. But it's the first element that you seem to actually understand, so point to you.

>How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing?

The discussion has expanded since you've proven beyond all doubt you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.

Outright stating that your plan is to clap your hands over your ears and yell "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is an interesting tactic, but not one I see playing out too well for you in the long run.

>>643430

>because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing

You are making such a bizarre leap of logic that I'm skeptical it would be possible for anyone to ever actually believe this.

Claiming that flaps can't be for lift because the aircraft can descend with them extended is as stupid as claiming that wings must not be for lift for the same reason. Even if the lift isn't enough to stop the aircraft from descending, it is still more than it would be without them, and that increase is very significant.

>>643430

Autism

>>643464

>you failed read the rest of my post like the other person

Anon I was agreeing with you. My example of the P-61 was in response to articulated guns being used as anti-bomber weapons.

>>641645

For a moment I thought the white stripes on the first one were windows, now I’m disappointed the soviets didn’t built a larger P1000 Ratte landship.

>>642321

>Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

I’ll have to apologize for my fellow countryman. I’m sure you all understand what it’s like to be a leaf but I still must apologize for this particular example.

>>643567

>And I'm very sorry you have to see this example of Canadian education joining in with examples of other Western-nations cucked educational systems trying to grandstand on a booster seat.

Are you actually retarded? The very first fucking sentence from the link you posted, says you’re wrong

>Altitude can be determined based on the measurement of atmospheric pressure. The greater the altitude, the lower the pressure.

Surely this is all for (you)s right? You cannot be this dumb.

>>643567

>You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?

>LESS LIFT - FLYING LEVEL OR RISING IN ALTITUDE

>MORE LIFT - DESCENDING IN ALTITUDE AND LANDING

You seem to be under the impression that the amount of lift produced by the wing is the be-all, end-all of altitude control. You are completely wrong.

Consider a glider with extendible flaps, and in weather with no thermals (I'm sure the idea of a localized, rising column of air is inconceivable to your perfect equilibrium atmospheric model). It clearly must be descending, regardless of how much lift its wings are producing, since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion. If it extends its flaps, lift increases. However, so does drag, meaning the aircraft has to trade more altitude to maintain its speed. This means it has to have a steeper flight path, even though it has more lift at a given speed. This is not a contradiction. Now assume that instead of being a glider, this aircraft had an engine that we had left on a low power setting, so that the previous cases still hold. You could, if you wanted, increase thrust to counteract the drag instead, meaning you don't have to nose down to trade altitude for speed. In that case, you instead have a shallower (or potentially level or climbing, with the right power and attitude) flight path, still at the same speed as the other two cases.

>all these mobs of (you) being retarded and not understanding basic flight physics.

You have multiple actual pilots in this thread telling you you're a retard who doesn't know fundamental theory of flight.

>>643577

He's an idiot, but you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.

He is wrong though, since air has flows and eddies that cause and are caused by differences in pressure. This is true on scales from large weather systems (which is why pressure altimeters have an adjustment knob, and why weather reports always provide sea level pressure) down to scales that affect aircraft (turbulence due to wind around buildings, trees, etc).

>>643579

>since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion.

This isn’t true, gravitational potential only changes into downward kinetic energy, gravity only accelerated downwards. A bullet accelerates downwards while it’s x velocity it constant, of course there is air resistance so actually the bullet accelerates down and backwards after leaving the barrel, but x, y, & z components of motion are all independent. The glider moves forward because like a bomb it had the same foward velocity as the plane that carried it forward, only lift decreases gravitational acceleration (which I suppose is heavily dependent on forward motion as a glider dropped from a static helicopter would just fall downwards)

>you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.

Ah, I see.

>>643584

>downward kinetic energy

Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.

To give a more detailed description of what's going on, gravity pulls the aircraft down, but interactions with the air flow are what pushes it forward as well. If you simply drop a glider, it still ends up with some forward motion for that same reason. Try it with a paper airplane. The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust. In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity. It's convenient for basic explanations of theory of flight to treat the four forces as direct pairs (thrust directly opposite drag and lift directly opposite gravity, and with a common centre for each pair) but they're not really.

The reason I wrote in terms of energy transfer instead of forces is for that very reason. Overall that is what's happening, but if you express it in terms of forces it's more roundabout.

If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag. In reality the speed of a given glider depends simply on attitude, not on the time of flight on the speed when it released from tow.

>>643584

>If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag

That doesn’t happen? I thought gliders has to nose down slightly to build up speed to maintain lift.

>Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.

Well energy isn’t really a “real” thing, it more of a book keeping means. At least in a physics sense. But gravitational potential will only convert to kinetic energy when an object has a downward component of its motion.

>The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust.

Admittedly I only vaguely know how planes work since we learned that in grade 6 or 7, I’m first year in uni physics so it’s mostly Newtonian physics in simple situations, like we learned in early high school physics, just replacing formulas with claclulus. I suppose I shouldn’t have commented since I hardly know shit about flight.

>In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity.

Ah, I thought lift from the wings was the only opposition to gravity and lift was only achieved by a forward velocity. Pardon the retardation

>>643625

I want to call bullshit simply because it's so cartoonish, but frankly I don't know enough about the physics or technology involved to do with with any real justification.

If it ever worked to any appreciable degree, what are the odds the project was really discontinued? Or that the US continued it?

>>643632

US have similar technology, they use them to build DUMBs

>>643625

Id say its kinda bullshit since the drills would get fucked after one kilometer of digging or so

>>643636

Yeah, it reminded me immediately about the theories involving those supposed nuclear tunneling machines that build these DUMBs stuffed full of aliens who eat homeless people.

>>643655

>So NASA, the Smithsonian, the FAA and Wikipedia are all just wrong?

Wouldn't be the first fucking time, quit arguing from authority.

>>643700

>flat out ignore people explaining the mechanics of flight to you

And now you're arguing from what, ad populum? And trying for classic jew "quit doing what im doing" as well.

>>643701

>explaining the mechanics of flight is now a fallacy during a discussion of flight mechanics

Sure thing friend. Funny thing is, I haven't seen you provide a SINGLE source to back up your bizarre claim that flaps have nothing to do with lift, whereas I have provided multiple. Oh, right, you consider sources to be an argument from authority.

Is this the designated "science thread" now?

>>643625

For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

>>643700

>every time someone tried putting big guns on submarines they ended up getting rammed by someone and sinking in peacetime

Feels bad man.

>>643705

How can a Hungarian of all nationalities be so mathematically illiterate?

>>643705

This video game me illiteracy.

>>643709

Don't be racist, mate. Being mongoloid does not necessarily mean you're good at math.

>>641751

>That PPSH

>"I swear this has never happened to me before comrade!"

>"Let's just cuddle for a bit and see how I'm doing in ten minutes"

>"No, of course it's not you! Look, I just had a hell of a day and maybe tonight's not the best night, you know"

>>643709

Shitty post-soviet education system gives us the bad math.

those might have been pretty good against Jap infantry who lacked anti-armor weapons.>>638947

might have been good if their role as anti-commerce had ever happened.

sink freighters from nice safe distance fast using proven gun VS limited torpedoes.>>643700

>>638886

>Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.

>

>They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.

>

>>>638874

>

>The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

Me-163 much faster than any escorts (until it had to glide back to base) and (in theory) didn't have all the complex engine that required hi-grade gas.

Brits did study during WW2 and found that even the "more accurate than bombs" rocket equiped later model Hawker fighter-bombers missed even undefended tanks in an open field all day long. IIRC the post-WW1 idea was that a "moving fortress" would win an artillery dual against soft-target served field guns who couldn't function around even anti-personal shrapnel.

>>654056

>>654055

>>654060

>>654065

>>654068

For fucks sake, where did you come from?

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/VS%205.htm>>654079

>>654070

I'd like him if he replied to the posts

>>654073

>WTF is so god damn hard about putting a proper cat on a carrier in this day and age.

Those F-35Bs won't sell themselves.

I'm still mad no one outside of France is using the Rafale-M, easily the best carrier fighter in active service and would've been perfect for the Queen Elizabeth regardless of CAT.

>>643625

>>643708

Shut up yank, let me dream of land submersibles silently hunting landships.

>>643708

>>643625

>>643632

>For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.

First nuclear landmines are definitely a thing.

Second nuclear tunneling is ALSO a thing (US project Plowshare, while the soviets actually did deploy some to make various earthworks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy ).

Then tunnel boring machine do exist and they all use a tremendous amount of electricity.

So in the 1960's soviet "put nuclear reactors on everything" it makes sense, even for just civilian applications to make an autonomous tunnel boring machine (if you have to dig say a train tunnel in the middle of nowhere, which is Russia default mode, you have to bring the power supply with it so…) the same they had nuclear trains, nuclear ships and today nuclear mobile power stations that they at least looked into it.

>>654157

>>For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

>

>That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.

Its like The Holocaust (tm)!

The Jews claimed the Nazis made them into lampshades and bars of soap, but then the Jews said that was all just made up.

But NOW….Jews are saying it has been recently discovered that some OTHER Nazi did indeed happen to do those exact same things somewhere else to some other Jews.

Same thing with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Defense_of_John_Demjanjuk

Wiki is not quite forecoming on the details. What happened in Israel is the case completely fell apart and even the Jews had to admit some other Jews were lying and it was wrong guy, etc.

Then, later, Jews in the US Govt found out he actually was a Nazi War Criminal, but at a completely different camp murdering a completely diff set of Jews!

Truly a story arc of Shakespeare proportions!

Any know of any prior use of this "guy wrongly accused of crime with entire world stacked against him, but in dramatic international trial he is found not just Not Guilty but fully acquitted as Mistaken ID….but then….after dogged detective work…he is found actually really guilty of exact same type of crime but at similar but diff location as story line? ???

>>641751

The second picture isn't a curved barrel weapon. It's a wood and plastic mock-rifle from H&K. This was one their caseless weapons, an LMG if I'm not mistaken. You'd hinge it open to load a block clip of several hundred rounds. It was not related to the G11 operating system, just something they were looking into around that time. It didn't go anywhere.

I believe the fourth pic shows a prototype M16 with a quick-detach barrel for use as an LMG. There was a belt-fed GPMG variant of the AR-10 that was rejected for being too fragile, and there have been several attempts to turn the AR-15 into an LMG.

>>644592

I do wonder what the tactical purpose of a downward curving barrel is. I understand around the corner barrels. Was it meant to fire down from height, or were you supposed to hold the gun kind of vertically to shoot it over the top of a trench or something? I would bet down from heights for urban fighting.

>>639468

>>639086

How many guys would you need to produce enough cum filled balloons to be a useful psywar tool against … say … a large crowd of feminists?

>>654292

I'm guessing the idea was to use it for trench warfare, or urban combat where you need to fire (blind) over a wall. You'd think they could figure out an angled mirror sight to make the fire a little less blind, and useful for more than 'Ivan, suppress things (badly) in that general direction'.

>>654301

Holy shit, it's crazier and more autistic than I ever thought possible. That's what I love about this board.

>>654301

or maybe, since its better to shoot low due to ricocheting or however the fuck its called, and these red fucks having limited time for training troops so they git gud had a bright idea to make a gun that shoots low ALWAYS so even your typical 80 iq siberian peasant could do that

>>654292

It was for tankers to fire from the hatch in the turret. It was scrapped because it's a terrible idea and useless if you're outside of the tank.

>>639069

SURE, anti-sub patrol anywhere outside of enemy aircraft range, particularly in the early years when U-boats had free reign in USA's heavily traffic South and East Coast routes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Alley

These BLIMPS were well used and K-class not fully retired until 1950s.

If we'd had real airships that could shadow convoys all across The Pond until within range of RAF might have done a lot of good.

>>654344

Blimps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-class_blimp#Specifications_(K-14)

>>654914

The best I could do is say look into dope and fab for the techniques of manufacturing aviation parts old school style, then using known good physics designs to make patterns to manufacture. you can reasonably build airplanes with wood and canvas.

>>639286

These sorts of drive systems would've vulnerable to em pulses yes?

>>654983

No. Since the 50s all tanks and IFVs are designed to be immune to the effects of an electronmagnetic pulse. It's because they were designed for a nuclear battlefied. And all modern vehicles have electric motors and generators inside them to begin with. Besides, those EMP weapons from science-fiction don't exist.

>>654983

EMP is a fucking meme.

An EMP that is big enough to fry an electronic systems can only be generated from INSIDE the burning range of the atomic weapon.

An high altitude EMP could maybe take out a power grid… because a power grid is mostly airborne cables that act as one gigantic antenna.

>>655070

That'd be enough to crash inner city SoCal with no survivors.

>>654914

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

IMO this would be one of the best Bug Out options. Seriously. Launch at night and in a few minutes you will be out of rifle range. Sure its a little risky but with a bit of planning you will have choice of landing zones on several hundred mile strip away from trouble/population. I'd want as least one extra tank and balloons to do one landing and re-launch. Wait for winds to change after initial "get out of Dodge" escape, then re-launch.

I'm also planning to use balloon or kite to hoist small repeater.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9faCP4rZbg

>>655160

>"We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed."

>"If he had a pilot's license, we'd suspend that, but he doesn't."

New hard drive so I have no reaction image, so just imagine one of somebody laughing.

>>655035

>>655070

Thanks guys. Fairly informative and logical.

>>643636

>US have similar technology, they use them to build DUMBs

Indeed, but you wouldn't believe the amount of dumb (heh) niggers denying the very existence of DUMBs…

>>661731

>>661731

>This thing sounds like my dream fighter

Why so? Su-27 is way more beautiful.

>Could the MiG 1.44/1.42 have actually been an efficient aircraft

No because it did not offer many advantages over Su-27 family.

>>639810

Underrated.

>>654103

I'm constantly furious that we will never buy Rafales or MiG-31's for our chairforce. A man can dream, though…

>>674770

I also have it on good authority that you should use sour cream instead of yogurt if you want it to taste more "authentic."

>>674728

The Genie made perfect sense when you consider the state of missile technology back in 1954. The USAF rightly feared that their cutting-edge AAM then under development would turn out to be an unreliable piece of shit, so they tried to come up with a standoff anti-bomber weapon that used as many proven technologies as possible.

>>674900

Hence the fake semen counterpart (which I've been told has a distinct smell that would trick anyone but the most whorish of women into thinking it's the same thing).

>>675327

Krauts' aeronautic tech edge was their main, if not only, advantage in terms of weaponry and the their lack of surface fleet their most notable deficiency. A carrier could have used the previous to counter the later. The only problem with Graf Zeppelin was that it wasn't a zeppelin.

>>674941

Just add chlorine.

>>675327

Probably. It would probably be sunk just like the Bismarck was before it reached a port where it could operate from. The U-boot strategy was much more efficient than any surface fleet plan.

>>675327

I think it would have been pretty effective.

>fast

>decently armored

>very good AA

>we already know German pilots are very good

If they had kept to the original construction schedule, it would have been ready for operation Rheinübung, and would have been a pretty decisive advantage.

Of course, this doesn't guarantee that operation Rheinübung would have been successful or even a good idea, considering how the British scrambled fucking everything.

>>638890

Mecha actually could fill a couple niches. that is of material handling, light weapons carriers for foot mobile infantry, and in general operating in terrain typical vehicles can't get to, such as mountains like in afghanistan, dense forrest like in vietnam, and completely destroyed cityscapes like in stalingrad.

although not in the giant gundam and battlemech style, more like powered suits or like a skidsteer on legs.

>>675382

Well, when you own every airfield in Europe and you aren't planning any transoceanic attacks, why would you need one? You can already strike anywhere in the UK and when you still had planes and pilots to spare, the arctic convoys could be attacked too.

Which goes into the second point that German pilots WERE very good. Like the Japs they made one critical mistake with their air powers which was having no rotation on their pilots. The best of the best kept flying until they were killed or captured. Losing all of their techniques and skills they had to make it to the top with them. American aces were rotated back to the states where they were turned into flight instructors, teaching new pilots their skills and flying styles so they came onto the battlefield with an inherently better understanding of air combat while the replacement German and Jap pilots were mere conscripts that had to learn in battle or die.

>>675417

That's a problem as you often can't tell if they're comparing optimum, planned, or storage complement.

But I did a tiny bit of digging, so lets compare the Ark Royal and the Graf Zeppelin

Graf Zeppelin: 5,450m² hangar with 42 aircraft

Ark Royal: : 5,690m² hangar with 60 Aircraft

So the Graf Zeppelin should absolutely be able to carry more aircraft, likely the same with the Jade class.

Graf Zeppelin is heavier, but not massively so, considering it was planned to carry 16x150mm guns and was faster than Ark Royal.

Of course, this doesn't even go into sortie rates.

>>675423

>You can already strike anywhere in the UK and when you still had planes and pilots to spare, the arctic convoys could be attacked too.

True, (purpose built) long range naval bombers were the best solution, arguably a better idea than uboats.

>>675430

2D is life, 2D is love.

>>675431

I like to feed random shit, and I mean random shit into the great communist botnet so I can say I played my part in fucking it.

>>675522

> would constructing destroyer-sized carrier escort vessels whose sole armament consists of as many AA guns one can fit have been a meme or reasonable investment at the time?

Aren't guided missile destroyers essentially that? Besides also having a role in anti-ship and anti-ballisitic missile roles, they carry SAMs.

>>675431

>Gibraltar

The Germans notably avoided action that would bring Spain and Portugal into the war, (hence the blue division fighting only in the east) what was the plan to preserve this in a fight over Gibraltar?

>>675581

IMO Hitler's biggest mistake (besides not actually solving the Jewish Problem) was not leaning on Franco to at least allow some "fanatics" to take over The Rock and declare it for Spain or even "independent" but more or less seal that end of the Med for Axis with Vichy Tangier being the controlling coastal fort/port.

Sink a couple ships in Seuz, and prevent salvage, and Med becomes an Axis lake.

A feckless Mexican like Franco could even fake trying to battle the "rebels", he could even allow UK troops onto Spanish land, then let them get fucked up. Nothing worse than a Spic who is pretending to want to help you.

Play it like "Ok, its British territory, but only if de-militarized". Put some Spic muscle in the ground and make sure ALL the most odious British Law is enforced to the max on the locals.

>>676456

>>676446

You buds are forgetting that during ww2 Spain relied on Allied goods to survive.

>Flexible decks

An idea tested, but never put into service, was the flexible or inflated, air-cushioned, "rubber deck". In the early jet age it was recognised that eliminating the landing gear for carrier borne aircraft would improve the flight performance and range, since the space taken by the landing gear could be used to hold additional fuel tanks. This led to the concept of a deck that would absorb the energy of landing. With the introduction of jet aircraft the risk of damaging propellers was no longer an issue, though take off would require some sort of launching cradle. Tests were carried out with a de Havilland Sea Vampire flown by test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown onto a flexible deck fitted to HMS Warrior. The deck consisted of a rubberised sheet fully supported on multiple layers of pressurised fire hose. Supermarine designed its Type 508 for rubber deck landings. The flexible deck idea was found to be technically feasible but was abandoned, as the weight of carrier aircraft increased and there were always doubts about the ability of an average pilot to land in this way.

>>677357

What's wrong with them? That aeroplane on your picture seems to be rather comfy.

t. not a planefag

>>677358

This but needs more windows.

>>638893

>Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT

Yes this is the first case of a tank ever being able to support two roles, it revolutionized tanks with sloped armor, and it made everyone jealous of the glorious soviets and so many other things the kremlin told me

>>677358

They all eschewed >1000kg bombloads in favor of m-muh 6000km range, a complete lack of self-sealing fuel tanks until 1943 notwithstanding.

Even Italian bombers carried 2-3 tons of bomb by the time of the Allied landings in Sicily.

>>677396

In a place like the Pacific, range really does matter, friend. Italy and Germany only had to bomb out a place you could get to on a bicycle. Japan had to bomb places a continent and a half away.

>>677386

I have never seen such anal devastation

>>677424

That doesn't excuse their unwillingness to produce short ranged versions with enlarged bomb bays when the Allies were starting to occupy Islands within surfboard range in the Philippines and elsewhere.

If only the H8K had reached mass production as a frontline bomber the glorious 大日本帝國 would've brought an end to the Allies in no time.

>>661764

You can always look into RC plane communities, many of them love building late prototypes.

I remember seeing multiple Arado E.555 version that all handled suprisingly well.

Will it be possible to control the air transportation with our minds? I think the immobile people will be useful as the robot mind controllers and the soldiers can summon for more air supports at anytime.

>>640524

>being retarded

>be literally lower Germans

>sympathizing for subhumans

Read >>640184 and apply yourself.

>>640184

Poor dogs.

>>677912

happy plane

>>676456

iffty/50.

On one hand you got always feckless Spics, on the other hand they fighting on home ground and most had exp. from recent Civil War.

On the other other hand you'd have lots of guys who lost Civil War wanting to aid Allies.

On the other hand its lots of rough terrain and tough infantry war of attrition and supply.

But IMO Hitler could've leaned on Franco and Spain would be bristling with pro-Nazi armed militia to ward off any invasion.

>>675522

Horizon-class of the french and Italian navy are just that, dedicated AA destroyers.

>>682913

Italian version has like 3x OTO 76/62 Strales and 2x 25m OTO-Oerlikon KBA to compliment it's fair (and diverse) assortment of AA missiles.

>>687140

Post-WWII American Navy was really interesting, with getting entirely shafted by crippling budget cuts and the Revolt of the Admirals. While I think the idea was technically viable, I have to assume that the Army/Air Force were right that it would be prohibitively expensive to put them out there in any great numbers.

>>683925

Steampunk needs more media exploration, it's such a potentially fun setting.

>>687144

I wouldn't call myself a fan of steampunk, but I will say it's the healthiest way to prepare punk.

>>687140

>>687142

Elaborate on the concept please?

>>687191

The USN had ordered 5 large flush decked supper carriers before the Project was canceled in 1949, 5 days later after the first carrier's keel was laid down leading some USN Admirals to resign in protest.

These carriers were supposed to carry heavy (relatively speaking) nuclear-armed strategic bombers whose wingspan was too large to fit on the decks of regular carriers, hence the unobstructed flat deck.

Consequently such a carrier would have very limited onboard defensive armament and piss poor to no radar, relying on its escorts for such things.

They would operate as dedicated heavy bomber carriers inna Task force alongside regular carriers, apparently the Chair force wanted the monopoly on strategic nuclear strike capability and so jewed it to death with the argument that the ships would be too expensive.

>>687140

It was pretty retarded. They made all sorts of design compromises in order to operate strategic bombers… which were all totally unnecessary, since the USN had already developed a strategic bomber capable of operating from Midways and were only a year away from adopting it. Had they made it to production they would have actually been no better at their intended role than a Midway, while costing several times as much and being useless dead weight in a conventional war.

>>687215

>>687210

What exactly would have made them so much more expensive than conventional suppercarriers?

>>687322

They were about as big and expensive as a Forrestal, but had half the hangar capacity (with an even smaller magazine) and would have needed to be accompanied at all times by a special command vessel because they didn't have the sensors to track their own air wing.